Tommy Robinson v. Kimberly Martin

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 5, 2019
Docket18-6565
StatusUnpublished

This text of Tommy Robinson v. Kimberly Martin (Tommy Robinson v. Kimberly Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tommy Robinson v. Kimberly Martin, (4th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6565

TOMMY RAY ROBINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NURSE KIMBERLY MARTIN; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; COLLEGIAL MEDICAL GROUP,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:17-cv-00535-DKC)

Submitted: June 25, 2019 Decided: July 5, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tommy Ray Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Tommy Ray Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Robinson v.

Martin, No. 8:17-cv-00535-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2018). In addition, we note that

numerous claims are raised by Robinson for the first time on appeal. We decline to

consider these claims. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993)

(holding that claims raised for the first time on appeal generally will not be considered,

absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice);

First Virginia Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 206 F.3d 404, 407 n.1 (4th Cir.

2000) (declining to consider issues raised for first time on appeal). We deny Robinson’s

motions for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tommy Robinson v. Kimberly Martin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tommy-robinson-v-kimberly-martin-ca4-2019.